Before caller-id, someone receiving a phone call had no idea who was calling. After caller-id, the recipient might have known who was calling, but wouldn't have known why. Even if the recipient knew who was calling and why, the recipient still might have had to take several actions to find documents and applications that were relevant to the phone call. Thus, phone calls were often seen as intrusions and may have been ignored rather than answered because the recipient had neither the time nor inclination to experience a context shift.
Conventionally, information stored on the receiving phone or elsewhere (e.g., telecommunications server, cloud, application) may have facilitated partially setting the context for a phone call. For example, when a call was received for which a calling number was available, the familiar caller-id feature may have been employed. In another example, when a call was received from a number for which identifying information had been stored, then that identifying information (e.g., name, photo, business) may have been displayed. The identifying information may have helped the user decide whether to answer the phone. Additionally, the identifying information may have helped the user switch between mental tasks. For example a user may have switched from thinking about a business matter to thinking about a family matter. The identifying information may also have helped the parties to the call save time since they may not have needed to identify each other. For example, if the person receiving the call already knew that the call was from their daughter, then the person receiving the call could have answered “hello Emma” instead of simply saying “hello.” Answering by name may have saved time because it established in the caller's mind that the person receiving the call already knew their identity.